Posted on 06/25/2006 1:53:17 PM PDT by drellberg
Not only that but see next picture- only 1/3 give two craps.
And now some good news: The New York Times approval rating (stock price) has gone from a high of 52 in June of 02 to Fridays closing af 23!
W is moving up off his lows!
Not so sure about that, while the economy was good, most folks hadn't connected him and the economy together at the time, his rehab campaign did that, and the media helped.
I always felt that if the whole thing had just been timed differently, it may have gotten different results.
The left wing still hadn't embraced him yet, mostly because they were to stupid to realize he really was one of them, and lot of folks found the whole scandal to be annoying, once it got past that stage, he started to bounce back....but his party didn't do as well.
The media loved it, because it was a great story, it sold papers, it drew ratings, it was a living ATM story.
Once things got serious, Clinton, the media and co, generated a rehab campaign that was geared with sources of marketing information and internal polling.
One of which was that alot of folks were starting to get tired, once the media started beating itself up, it left only the GOP doing the hitting, and did start to make him sympathetic, which was vulger to me, to say the least.
your right about one thing, your a junkey, and its not news.
Let's say I average the %rating for the 7 issues (Economy, Iraq, Foreign Policy, Envinronment, Energy policy, Terrorism, Immigration); that is, add 'em up and divide by 7. Then compare that result to the "Overall Job" approval rating. I realize that doesn't account for different levels of interest on those issues, of course, but that's not going to affect my question much.
LD -> Average = 9, Overall JA = 7
MD -> Average = 18, Overall JA = 13
Ind -> Average = 31, Overall JA = 29
MR -> Average = 53, Overall JA = 60
CR -> Average = 70, Overall JA = 86
I find it interesting that while the Dems give Bush a lower JA score than the average of the seven issues, Republicans -- and especially Conservative Republicans -- give him a much higher JA score than the average of the seven issues.
Indeed, the CR "Overall Job Approval" rating is higher than ANY of the CR issue ratings. Say what?
The only way I can interpret this is that while Conservative Republicans take exception to the President's handling on a lot of the issues, the same individuals are willing to give him a pass on the overall job because, "After all, he's a Republican." And Dems have the inverse relationship, for the same reason. That's just my guess anyway...
I offer this interpretation for criticism; I don't have a better explanation, and would be happy to hear of something less, well, partisan. It amazes me that we'd say the President was doing a bang-up job (86%), when the highest figure on any of the issues was less (85%) and some as low as 51%.
WTF?
Man, I miss the Houston Post!
And your alternative is?
No one can please all the people all the time.
Unfortunately, the difference with Clinton was that he remained in the 50s and even 60s during Monica-gate.
I agree, but he'd have to be convincing.
Yep. Good analysis.
Actually, you're the embarrasment!
Two recommendations:
1.) read Bill Buckley's new article, "Deploring Bush"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20060623/cm_ucwb/deploringbush
2.) read an ACCURATE analysis of President Reagan's behavior vis a vis spending, amnesty and uber-conservatives and then tell us again just how "pathetic" President Bush is by comparison!
I forget how that saying goes. Something like, "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."
Gee, Wally. It sure looks like President Bush's re-election is in jeopardy.
"Unfortunately, the difference with Clinton was that he remained in the 50s and even 60s during Monica-gate."
. . . an outcome made possible by the fact that MSM polls ALWAYS give Democrats a 5 to 16 point advantage in their weightings -- a fact that gave Clinton an INFLATED JA rating during the entirety of his presidency, including Monica-gate.
[Remember, Clinton never received a MAJORITY of the vote in either of his election bids . . . In 1996, the MSM polls put Clinton's JA rating in the mid to high 50s, yet he only earned 49% of the popular vote; conversely, the MSM polls put GWB's JA rating in the low to mid 40s in 2004, yet he earned 51% of the vote (probably closer to 52-53% if we could adjust the results to reflect all of the Democrat voter fraud)!]
FYI: Relative to PERSONAL APPROVAL ratings -- as noted by The Battleground Poll and even the LATimes Poll -- Clinton could never get above 40% and GWB has never been below 60%!
Thank you for the ping, I always love your posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.